Jerry J. Fortin

I see this as a case of a nation not withdrawing from lands seized in armed conflict. One point worth mentioning is that the land was captured in response to an unprovoked military assault and held as a security measure. Those conflicts were resolved without an agreement to return the captured lands, this of itself provides all the legal means by international law. Of course laws can be changed but there is a reality to be considered here. It is not mere dates and facts to be brought into question.....all these events have transpired to bring us to now. What nation on this earth can be expected to have its internal affairs mandated by the UN? What nation on earth would bow to the will of the UN? This entire argument is absurd, it is not rational. At best the world needs to consider that any conflict in Israel would be an internal one and be declared as a civil war. Until once again a nation attacks Israel and a war will again follow, Chances are that once again Israel will capture more territory, and the cycle will continue. The only "fix" is to settle the Palestinians as citizens of Israel within the occupied territories and avoid military use altogether. That done democracy rules................

Harper and Watergate in the same sentence.....hmmmm. I think Steve is getting screwed by low level people not doing what they should be doing. I think Steve is getting buggered by mid level people not riding herd on low level subordinates. I think Steve is about to have sex with the cabinet.

The pot business could represent a new multi-billion dollar industry for this nation. If the government had any brains at all it would see the legislative shift as a tax grab like it does with everything else. These new sources of revenue could be targeted as debt reduction funds, eventually sin taxes should be used as part of a comprehensive debt relief economic action plan of enlightened reformation. The 800 pound gorilla is national debt. Everything relates to it it in the worst way.

Harper is merely doing some political wrangling. The shuffle is a response to inquiries about running in the next election, Steve is filing the holes. In my view at this point public support is trending away from the entire Conservative Party, I think Harper will define his government with this shuffle, not to bolster his own power base but instead to attack political opposition. I am not convinced that the PM is confident in his own party....

What the former PM was saying was that in his view, Trudeau is in fact formidable.

They are scared. They should be.

I am going to be a Liberal voter in the next election. My decision has already been made. It was based on my dislike of the current government. Harper sold his political soul to get power. From his opinions while involved in the NCC and in addition, the Alberta Firewall Letter and his connection to that, and every scandal since he has taken power, Harper has no support from me. The point I was making was that in fact the government of Steven Harper has chosen to spend Conservative Party funds, which are in reality subsidized with government funds, in an attempt to prevent positive or favorable public opinion for Trudeau.

In truth the Conservatives are scared. The next election is too far away and therefore its outcome cannot be accurately predicted. Conservative numbers are trending down along with the NDP while the Liberals are trending upward. This attack ad recognizes the direct political threat that Trudeau represents. There is concern within the ranks that leader approval ratings will have high impact on voter turnout. That spells distinct trouble for Harper. Trudeau needs to energize the apathetic voter in order to actually defeat the Harper government. There is a great deal of speculation as to the demographic with most folks suggesting an anti government sentiment is prevalent. If that is the case I would suggest that Trudeau needs to have the patience to rise above the temptations of petty politics. A leader that marginalizes partisan rhetoric could garnish much support over a short period of time. Since he is neither the government nor the opposition, so he can pick and choose which battles he fights with great care and slowly formulate policy based on popular not partisan support. Should he proceed carefully by the time the next policy convention takes place he will have established the level of popular support for each of his chosen policies. At that point, on the convention floor the party will have the opportunity to solidify policy that reflects a majority of Canadians views.

Somebody on here must know how long after those rockets were fueled will they have to be drained and serviced? The answers I find vary, but anywhere from as little as 24 to as many as 72 hours is enough time for the fuel to corrode the tanks rendering them unsafe to say the least. Given that there are reports that a medium ranged rocket is vertical and ready to launch we can expect one of two outcomes. It gets taken down and serviced or it gets launched. Soon....

This is beginning to get interesting! Harper and an olive branch,,,,,! This is indeed precedent turf! An alternative caucus, just because we can't let you go...... This is a new approach!

I don't know, but it seems you do! Can you share what you think with me, because I really don't have a clue what they think! In the past the precedent seems to be ejection from caucus for the back bench folks, and at least demotion to the backbench if not ejection from a cabinet position. Following that reasoning there are 24 no longer Conservative MP's that are no longer counted support votes for the government. As to what a majority of MP's think all I can figure is that there was no recorded support of Warwa to be found.

The real question to be asked is whether or not elected representatives speak for their constituents or not. The real answer is painful to accept. That is reality. While the political and media issues spin and twist in the wind the public begins to demand the answer to the real question. The Conservatives are in trouble, and the latest spin is about Trudeau not being ready to govern, an attack ad planned for release before the Liberal Leadership vote. Distracting the public, yet fooling nobody. The real question is whether or not Parliament or the Prime Minister is supreme.

The problem of politicians salaries at public expense is indeed difficult. In truth it doesn't matter how much they are paid, its never enough for them and always too much for the tax payer. In my opinion, the wages of MP's should be immediately frozen pending a public inquiry. If it was up to me I would not pay them a dime until they balanced the books, not a red cent! The very idea that a government can predict that they will spend more money than they will receive a year into the future is a slap in the face to the public. To add insult to injury the government is constantly involved in cost overruns and additional expenses on a daily basis. Not that any of this matters at all in reality given that the nature of the beast is such that a politician is drawn to money like a moth is drawn to a light. They write the laws, it goes down the way they want it to.

Politicians voting themselves raises is not even newsworthy! I expect nothing less from them. As for the rest of us, reality sets in and whatever the market will bear sets our wages.

The Bank of Canada was created as a private bank, that is a matter of public record. The shareholders of that bank are not a matter of any public record I can find and I have looked very hard. The bank was made into public business in 1938, by an act of parliament to create a special kind of crown corporation. The Bank of Canada changed its name and became the Canadian Bank of Commerce and is now known as the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. The new central bank was formed, and the terms and conditions of the transfer of ownership are nowhere to be found. I believe it is safe to say that the owners of the Bank of Canada were compensated in some manner that was never disclosed to the public. I do not believe for a minute that the owners of that bank suffered any loss. The Bank of England was in private hands for two hundred years, and there are no accessible records regarding that transaction either. There is a large difference between share and bond holders in legal terms. Those terms were defined by the financial world, private not government banks. Bonds can be very interesting investments, the same cannot be said for shares that are subject to swings in market values. Bonds require different record keeping and come under different regulations. In addition, some bonds can be converted to shares...................... Governments print money, that is true. What is also true is that banks create credit, governments don't. Banks make money, governments don't. By the way more than 90% of the worlds money supply is not in bank notes and hard currency but instead it is interest bearing debt, issued as credit by a bank.